PDA

View Full Version : 29 years is the average age for first child of EU-women



Janos
2015-05-13, 16:38
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/6829228/3-13052015-CP-EN.pdf/7e9007fb-3ca9-445f-96eb-fd75d6792965

"First time mothers youngest in Bulgaria and Romania, oldest in Italy and Spain."

My questions:

Is 28.7 years a reasonable age for a woman to have her first child?

Why are women in Italy and Spain waiting longer to have children?

Danielion
2015-05-13, 21:26
My mother was 28. My paternal grandmother was 16. My maternal grandmother was 20 or so. Times change I guess.

If you ask me this is a reasonable age, especially as it's an average. About 50% is younger and about 50% is older.

Simi
2015-05-13, 21:41
It's way too late. A good age for a woman to get married and have her first child is ~20. There's absolutely no reason for a woman to wait any longer than that.

Janos
2015-05-13, 21:41
Even though Southern Europe is a bit more old-fashioned, Spanish and Italian women wait the longest.

- - - Updated - - -


It's way too late. A good age for a woman to get married and have her first child is ~20. There's absolutely no reason for a woman to wait any longer than that.

why marry?

Ether
2015-05-13, 21:47
It's way too late. A good age for a woman to get married and have her first child is ~20. There's absolutely no reason for a woman to wait any longer than that.

People are usually either still in college at age 20 or working shitty low paying jobs that can't afford a family. That is why the average is around 28-29.

flapperlife
2015-05-13, 21:52
Because some women have better shit to do than have babies. I don't understand why some people think women can't be "deep thinkers"-putting off child birth is an example of the opposite. Some women, myself included, want to finish college, want to ponder the meanings of our relation to the world, not just procreate and fill it up with more kids. I want to change the world, make a difference in someone's life, for the better.

Danielion
2015-05-13, 22:11
People are usually either still in college at age 20 or working shitty low paying jobs that can't afford a family. That is why the average is around 28-29.

Indeed. It's most important to be able to provide for the baby. The rest is just claptrap.

randomguy1235
2015-05-13, 22:51
I would say 25-26 is optimum range, considering that you'd definitely be done with higher education and adventuring by that time.

Cromagnorse
2015-05-14, 00:56
People are usually either still in college at age 20 or working shitty low paying jobs that can't afford a family. That is why the average is around 28-29.

Then it's rather strange that our piss poor ancestors could afford 10+ kids, and that piss poor negroes can do it even today. My own family speaks for itself: Grandpa was born into a poor northern Swedish farmer family of circa 12 kids. My mother only has one sibling, and she was the only one of them to have a(n only) child. People today are too comfortable, chasing useless and unfullfillable dreams that only 0,001% of the population can actually achieve. Thanks a lot, television. "My future is so bright that I need sunglasses", yeah right...

We need a new financial crisis so that Europeans start having babies again. Storms and other types of isolating, electricity-killing extreme weather also seems to help.

None of the shit that the average drone does today matters 100 years from now. The children of our children of our children (etc.) on the other hand, continue our genetical and social heritage.

- - - Updated - - -


Indeed. It's most important to be able to provide for the baby. The rest is just claptrap.

A baby needs food, water and parental love. Anything else is just petit-burgeoise nonsense parroted by rootless drones who've forgotten how their ancestors lived a mere two generations ago. Even the "poor" among westerners are filthy rich from a historical POV, having higher material wealth standards than even emperors of antiquity and the medieval era. Still, we're generally spiritually impoverished. The solutions isn't to spend more monopoly money on BS distractions that we (and our children) don't need. The solution is to bring spirituality (human interaction and purpose) into our lives. If you need to waste money on your kid then you're simply a shitty parent trying to make up for valuing your boss and your career more than your own flesh and blood.

Danielion
2015-05-14, 01:25
A baby needs food, water and parental love. Anything else is just petit-burgeoise nonsense parroted by rootless drones who've forgotten how their ancestors lived a mere two generations ago. Even the "poor" among westerners are filthy rich from a historical POV, having higher material wealth standards than even emperors of antiquity and the medieval era. Still, we're generally spiritually impoverished. The solutions isn't to spend more monopoly money on BS distractions that we (and our children) don't need. The solution is to bring spirituality (human interaction and purpose) into our lives. If you need to waste money on your kid then you're simply a shitty parent trying to make up for valuing your boss and your career more than your own flesh and blood.

Good luck with that. It's so typical of people like you to romanticize the past. We live today and not two generations ago and today's reality is one with a different economy, more access to education, etc.... Also typical is the wish for disaster (in the vain hope of a power vacuum getting filled it by what you'd assume would be a like-minded ideology). I wonder how well you'd fare once it would happen.
Babies also still get their bare necessities are you state, despite the 'decadence' alarmism you put forward.

P.S.: Shouldn't you be married yourself by now?

EliasAlucard
2015-05-14, 01:36
It's just career-girlism at work.


Because some women have better shit to do than have babies. I don't understand why some people think women can't be "deep thinkers"-putting off child birth is an example of the opposite. Some women, myself included, want to finish college, want to ponder the meanings of our relation to the world, not just procreate and fill it up with more kids. I want to change the world, make a difference in someone's life, for the better.How's that goin' for ya, pondering the meaning of life? Ultimately, the woman who chooses to have less kids (or none at all), is the evolutionary loser in the long haul.

A woman who doesn't want children is less attractive to any man, which is the purpose of feminism anyway: making women less attractive by disrupting birth-rates and destroying the nuclear family unit.

Women aren't great thinkers anyway, and rarely do a good job at it even if they try their damnedest (putting off child-birth is not thinking deeply; quite the opposite actually). Most men aren't great thinkers either (the average male is a moron), and look no further than the current disastrous situation in world politics and our environmental problems for evidence, when the solution to all our global problems is right in front of us (hemp).


People today are too comfortable, chasing useless and unfullfillable dreams that only 0,001% of the population can actually achieve. Thanks a lot, television. "My future is so bright that I need sunglasses", yeah right...http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/038/8/a/In_Tyler_we_trusted__by_innocent_sheep.jpg

Ether
2015-05-14, 01:49
Then it's rather strange that our piss poor ancestors could afford 10+ kids, and that piss poor negroes can do it even today. My own family speaks for itself: Grandpa was born into a poor northern Swedish farmer family of circa 12 kids. My mother only has one sibling, and she was the only one of them to have a(n only) child. People today are too comfortable, chasing useless and unfullfillable dreams that only 0,001% of the population can actually achieve. Thanks a lot, television. "My future is so bright that I need sunglasses", yeah right...

We need a new financial crisis so that Europeans start having babies again. Storms and other types of isolating, electricity-killing extreme weather also seems to help.

None of the shit that the average drone does today matters 100 years from now. The children of our children of our children (etc.) on the other hand, continue our genetical and social heritage.

Wages stopped tracking productivity gains since the 1970/80s. Before that time an average working man was enough to support a family in the developed world. This is the main cause for the decline in fertility and increase in women's age of first birth.

Western corporations have to stop being greedy and pay people according to 1970s standards again if they want people to have children earlier and more of them.

http://i.imgur.com/k7eFpzw.jpg

Danielion
2015-05-14, 01:55
Wages stopped tracking productivity gains since the 1970/80s. Before that time an average working man was enough to support a family in the developed world. This is the main cause for the decline in fertility and increase in women's age of first birth.

Western corporations have to stop being greedy and pay people according to 1970s standards again if they want people to have children earlier and more of them.

http://i.imgur.com/k7eFpzw.jpg

I agree with the first paragraph. The second one is too idealistic it lacks realism. :)

Awale
2015-05-14, 01:56
People are usually either still in college at age 20 or working shitty low paying jobs that can't afford a family. That is why the average is around 28-29.

My parents took their time, lol. Obviously not Europeans or ever residents of Europe but my ma' was about 32 and my dad was like 35. I'm their first and only child... I find that to be a good age tbh but my mother often says shit like "You want me to die before you have children?! 24 at the very least!" :lol:'

Anyway, 29 is a good age to me. Person's not as mature as they're ever going to be but it's a good age imho. And like you said; unless you're born with a silver spoon in your mouth like the Sheikh ;) -> most people can't afford a child in their early 20s and such.

Cromagnorse
2015-05-14, 02:07
Good luck with that. It's so typical of people like you to romanticize the past. We live today and not two generations ago and today's reality is one with a different economy, more access to education, etc....
Well, it's typical of rootless people like yourself (thank you very much tabula rasa hypothesis, urbanization and globalism) to assume that man is some sort of robot that can be re-wired any way "we" (wall $tr€€t) want, that we have no biological ties to our past behaviour what-so-ever. You've missed my point entirely:

"Even the "poor" among westerners are filthy rich from a historical POV, having higher material wealth standards than even emperors of antiquity and the medieval era. Still, we're generally spiritually impoverished. The solutions isn't to spend more monopoly money on BS distractions that we (and our children) don't need. The solution is to bring spirituality (human interaction and purpose) into our lives".

^^ That spirituality comes in the form of, f ex. creating a family with many well-raised, hard-working kids (not snotty little spoiled brats who think they'll get everything handed to them in life).


Also typical is the wish for disaster (in the vain hope of a power vacuum getting filled it by what you'd assume would be a like-minded ideology).
When man has gone overboard in less than two generations, creating massive concrete concentration camps with little of value (especially children, the carriers of the future in social and biological terms) within them, then I think we need a slap in the face and good poke to wake the hell up. I think of the greater perspective. You, along with much of my family and the rest of society, seem to only think of the here-and-now.


I wonder how well you'd fare once it would happen.
I'll be fine, thank you. Once I've gotten my BS university degree so that I can make monopoly money to be exchanged for important things sold by self-destructive, short-sighted and naïve half-wits, I will move to the countryside, having a few cows, pigs and chickens as well as weapons with plenty of ammunition. If I cared about massmänniskor, then I'd fear for the people who've trapped themselves in the urban concrete concentration camps. However, I don't, and I see what's about to come as a form of evolutionary pressure. Those not smart enough to think ahead will be wiped out through multuCULTi violence, famine (globalism = dependency on food imports and the death of local professional agriculture), low birth rates (breed or die out) etc. and our gene pool will be better off because of it. :evilgrin:


Babies also still get their bare necessities are you state, despite the 'decadence' alarmism you put forward
Yes, but how many babies, and of what quality? As a woman grows older, the possible quantity and quality (i.e. non-diseased) of her children is reduced. If you want to have a spoiled and lazy kid, then that's your problem. I can only lead sheep to water. I can't force them to drink it. Personally, I plan on never using contraceptives (nor dipping my penis in every cesspool there is), and thus returning to the birth rate of my great grandparents, with the child discipline to match it. In the long run, my genes will prevail over those of hundreds of thousands of blindfolded drones.


P.S.: Shouldn't you be married yourself by now?
I'd love to. Unfortunately, our natural village social ties have been completely removed (thank you very much urbanization), hence why I wasn't married at age 16. Also, any unskilled job I might get is likely to be handed over to any IQ 80 colonist fresh off the boat. I'm almost done with my professional-oriented studies, after which I will soon get myself a woman, give the world the middle finger and give evolution a great big hug. :yes:

Zert
2015-05-14, 02:11
. And like you said; unless you're born with a silver spoon in your mouth like the Sheikh ;)

Silver ladle judging by the size of your meals.

flapperlife
2015-05-14, 02:28
It's just career-girlism at work.

How's that goin' for ya, pondering the meaning of life? Ultimately, the woman who chooses to have less kids (or none at all), is the evolutionary loser in the long haul.

A woman who doesn't want children is less attractive to any man, which is the purpose of feminism anyway: making women less attractive by disrupting birth-rates and destroying the nuclear family unit.

Women aren't great thinkers anyway, and rarely do a good job at it even if they try their damnedest (putting off child-birth is not thinking deeply; quite the opposite actually). Most men aren't great thinkers either (the average male is a moron), and look no further than the current disastrous situation in world politics and our environmental problems for evidence, when the solution to all our global problems is right in front of us (hemp).

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/038/8/a/In_Tyler_we_trusted__by_innocent_sheep.jpg

It's definitely more fulfilling than having a kid (for now). For example, currently I'm writing an article that examines cultural appropriation versus appreciation, and I hope it can open the eyes to those too ignorant to know they are being ignorant.
I guess I came off too strong with my initial comment, cause if I'm being honest I (my ego) does eventually want at least one child. Right now, I'm way too selfish to have one though. I want to make something of my life; finish college, put my online magazine on the map, network with other Indigenous people to promote our environmental and sovereignty rights. When I'm ready, then I'll probably have kid.
I'm not sure why you're getting so defensive about me saying I have better things to do than have a kid. As far as the main stream white woman feminism you're referring to, I have a different kind. Intersectional woman of color feminism, which focuses on how women of color around the world have bigger issues to focus on that nuclear families being destroyed. For instance, Indigenous women face higher rates of violence compared to non-indigenous women, oftentimes due to patterns of colonialism/systemic racism. Some sources for further reading if you're inclined: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/mmaw-faapd-eng.pdf

a_garcia49
2015-05-14, 02:43
As far as the main stream white woman feminism you're referring to, I have a different kind. Intersectional woman of color feminism, which focuses on how women of color around the world have bigger issues to focus on that nuclear families being destroyed. For instance, Indigenous women face higher rates of violence compared to non-indigenous women, oftentimes due to patterns of colonialism/systemic racism. Some sources for further reading if you're inclined: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/mmaw-faapd-eng.pdf

It's shocking how some people don't realize that women of various races/ethnicities face different struggles. Majority of the time, White/Mainstream feminists(at least in the US) tend to exploit non-white female experiences to try and add more legitimacy to their own cause.

To answer the OP question, it could be due to the young generation wanted to have a secure career/relationship before even attempting to have a child.

Danielion
2015-05-14, 04:03
It's definitely more fulfilling than having a kid (for now). For example, currently I'm writing an article that examines cultural appropriation versus appreciation, and I hope it can open the eyes to those too ignorant to know they are being ignorant.
I guess I came off too strong with my initial comment, cause if I'm being honest I (my ego) does eventually want at least one child. Right now, I'm way too selfish to have one though. I want to make something of my life; finish college, put my online magazine on the map, network with other Indigenous people to promote our environmental and sovereignty rights. When I'm ready, then I'll probably have kid.
I'm not sure why you're getting so defensive about me saying I have better things to do than have a kid. As far as the main stream white woman feminism you're referring to, I have a different kind. Intersectional woman of color feminism, which focuses on how women of color around the world have bigger issues to focus on that nuclear families being destroyed. For instance, Indigenous women face higher rates of violence compared to non-indigenous women, oftentimes due to patterns of colonialism/systemic racism. Some sources for further reading if you're inclined: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/mmaw-faapd-eng.pdf

It might have some relation to their marginalisation, but the blame still lies on their own detrimental culture and the violent nature of their males. White guilt isn't going to save them. Universities (politically correct as they are) often seem to think it is. At least they are still real learning centers when it comes to hard sciences, what concerns humanities they're just as much 'indoctrination centers' I have the impression.

So-called 'people of colour' are not exempt from responsibility and whites neither have anything handed over to them on a silver platter. Two common misconceptions.

Celph Titled
2015-05-14, 06:29
I have always found first world countries to wait longer to have children, at least among white americans that is the norm. I think it might have to due with that fact that a lot of the younger generation are putting their education/career first, while putting marriage and children on hold.

It doesn't help that women in general are getting more and more independent and are not thinking about having any children until in a much older age. How can you think about having a family when you are busy with your career and your wife is busy with hers, things like that do not add up.

a_garcia49
2015-05-14, 06:38
It doesn't help that women in general are getting more and more independent and are not thinking about having any children until in a much older age. How can you think about having a family when you are busy with your career and your wife is busy with hers, things like that do not add up.

Well guess you could say it's better than putting your child with a babysitter, causing a disconnect if left separated from parents for too long. The economic environment in the US isn't exactly "family friendly".

Celph Titled
2015-05-14, 07:16
Well guess you could say it's better than putting your child with a babysitter, causing a disconnect if left separated from parents for too long. The economic environment in the US isn't exactly "family friendly".

Yeah I agree, although my aunt has a friend who is already in her late 30's, she is an educated woman, finished college and got a career. Her career requires her to travel aboard a lot, because of that, she never got the chance to really settle down with a guy, she had a very hard time keeping a man throughout all these years and she still does. Now she wants to have kids, but she has realized she has gotten old and finding a man to get married has been difficult, because of that, she now has decided to adopt a baby. There is sometimes a downfall for women who wait too long for these kind of things.

ps: that lady is not ugly at all, very attractive woman

Sully
2015-05-14, 09:05
Many of my paternal cousins graduated from college, found a husband/wife while they were there, began their careers (pharmacy, dentistry, teaching, engineering, business, etc.), bought a home, and had kids by the time they were 25-26 years old. I'm 21, and I don't think I'll ever get all that done by the time they did. My mom didn't have me until she was 34. My paternal family and all of my paternal ancestors have had about 3 to 7 children each (my maternal family usually had less children than that but they were poorer). My paternal grandmother had 15 children in the span of 20 years (from the 1940s to the 1960s). I couldn't imagine doing something like that. Many of my female ancestors married young because they had to. I want to travel more; I want to see the world; enjoy my youth. Kids are a handful and they're expensive. I don't want that responsibility so soon in my life and be stuck in one place. I think 29 years old is a pretty reasonable age (it isn't a health-risk for a woman to have a child until past the age of 35 anyway). I do want the experience of having children, raising them, seeing them grow up and be successful. I think there's very few things more rewarding in life. I'd like to have at least two children, maybe adopt a third, but I want stability first. I want a career, I want a husband, and I want our own home before I'll ever think about having kids. I don't see how anyone would disagree with this plan. Who would want someone to have kids if they're not even able to support themselves?


Yeah I agree, although my aunt has a friend who is already in her late 30's, she is an educated woman, finished college and got a career. Her career requires her to travel aboard a lot, because of that, she never got the chance to really settle down with a guy, she had a very hard time keeping a man throughout all these years and she still does. Now she wants to have kids, but she has realized she has gotten old and finding a man to get married has been difficult, because of that, she now has decided to adopt a baby. There is sometimes a downfall for women who wait too long for these kind of things.

ps: that lady is not ugly at all, very attractive woman

My maternal aunt never married nor had any children. She was a caretaker, really. She spent most of her later years taking care of my sick grandmother until her death, 5 year ago. But she says her "pickiness" is the reason she never married. She wouldn't settle down with just anyone. And although she said she found content in spoiling her nieces and nephews (she really is the most generous of my aunts), she says she's lonely now.

Awale
2015-05-14, 12:32
Right now, I'm way too selfish to have one though. I want to make something of my life; finish college, put my online magazine on the map, network with other Indigenous people to promote our environmental and sovereignty rights. When I'm ready, then I'll probably have kid.

Lol, you're like my mom tbh. She often highlights how her having time to live a life was very good for her... She traveled the world, met a lot of people, dated other men (she shouldn't have told me this as I demanded their numbers and addresses so I could murder them all! :lol: ), she owned several businesses, felt like an accomplished woman, graduated from uni etc. She often remarks that if she'd given birth at like 20 and been married at the age of 18; she'd probably have terribly resented her husband and worse yet; her baby.

If I have a daughter; I'll seriously go out of my way to forbid a marriage of any sort before she has a degree or whatever the fuck and can land a steady job and has some sort of career. I've seen what happens with these women (I have relatives like this) who don't have any sort of education and got married young; they're exploited by their asshole husband who knocked them up with several kids and they can't even dream about leaving cos well... How's some chick who can barely land a minimum wage job going to support 4 kids? Hell, 4 kids who may have been used to damn good living when she was with their father. They become these fat, nervous women with several insecurities (not always, of course) and my mother often remarks that she'd sooner die than be one of them. She owns a business even now...

I often ask my female cousins who are like 24 or so if they have life goals, a degree and yada yada and get happy when they say yes cos you know; I don't wanna have to put their future husband in a body bag to save them from a horrid hostage situation, I mean a marriage. ;)

Vetton
2015-05-14, 13:01
The average here in Spain is about 32 years. The reason for this is mainly economical, people here settle down later, women in their 20s still have not a secure job and/or enough salary, independence , etc. The women who have kids early are usually gypsies, immigrants, or low-class "white trash" girls.

Also is to blame feminism brainwashing, has made women into believing that having kids is old-fashioned and not important, when it should be the main goal for any woman, to give birth and raise children.

dbbrainer
2015-05-14, 19:23
Well, I am soon to be 30 and I am nowhere near having kids, maybe by 35, which is the age limit my Girlfriend told me I have got. Having children means putting off or on hold a lot of things and I am still not in a six figure salary, am not done studying (still have a Master's degree in International Employment Law to complete), or even traveling and seeing the world. I will get married soon though.

When I, as a Millenial, compare my older sister's life it is inevitable to feel bad. She and her husband had it much easier; they graduated from college by 23, did not even want to study anymore as I did, got married at a relatively young age (26) and by the time they were 30 (four years ago) they had a global net household income of over $120, 000 a year. I still have a lot of ambition and trust myself and my partner to do what we can do to be successful, maybe not quite like I had in mind when I was younger ... I don't dream of being in that group of people who earn more than 500 k a year, but I want to surpass my father at the very least.

EliasAlucard
2015-05-19, 17:16
It's definitely more fulfilling than having a kid (for now). For example, currently I'm writing an article that examines cultural appropriation versus appreciation, and I hope it can open the eyes to those too ignorant to know they are being ignorant.Why would "writing an article" be more important than spreading your genes?


I guess I came off too strong with my initial commentNo not at all ;)


cause if I'm being honest I (my ego) does eventually want at least one child.Why of course; that's what The Selfish Gene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene) is all about: we're basically gene machines, and our sole purpose for existence is to spread our genes, pretty much.

And you're a pretty woman anyway, and pretty women should reproduce! Otherwise posterity would only consist of ugly people, if the attractive ladies would be, "I gosta focus on my career and shit", namean?


Right now, I'm way too selfish to have one though.Well that's one way to look at it, but actually, having kids is being selfish (sort of), because when you spread your own genes, you basically copy yourself into the future gene pool, or at least a part of yourself.


I want to make something of my life; finish college, put my online magazine on the map, network with other Indigenous people to promote our environmental and sovereignty rights.Those are pipe dreams. And you won't make a difference anyway, unless you have the right contacts and connections. Mainstream iSheeple today don't really care about anything beside Facebook, iPhone and Obama.


When I'm ready, then I'll probably have kid."When you're ready", it'll probably be too late.

Most women don't really understand the world (and don't be offended by me saying so, because most men don't either). Career-girlism/feminism is about making women into men and men into women; you know, promoting traditionally male roles for women, such as education, job, career, making money and "earning a living" and all that other mainstream stuff. Thing is, it's fine if a guy does this stuff, because guys are supposed to hunt meat for and defend the tribe, whereas women are supposed to take care of the children. If women try to take on the hunting for meat role in an attempt to be "strong" and "independent", you're going to have women who are ready to have children first when they're 40 or so. And fertility for women at that age, is very low.

That's biological gender roles for ya.


I'm not sure why you're getting so defensive about me saying I have better things to do than have a kid.Oh I wasn't being the slightest defensive really ;) Perhaps offensive, but I don't think I was being that either. I was just trying to explain to you that for women, there's nothing more important than having children. Women who don't want children are not valuable to men, other than sex objects (you know, "sports fucking", like Brad Pitt says in Fight Club), and while that's fun and all, such women aren't adults, because a serious part of adulthood is reproduction.


As far as the main stream white woman feminism you're referring to, I have a different kind.Is there really any other variety? :unsure:


Intersectional woman of color feminism, which focuses on how women of color around the world have bigger issues to focus on that nuclear families being destroyed. For instance, Indigenous women face higher rates of violence compared to non-indigenous women, oftentimes due to patterns of colonialism/systemic racism. Some sources for further reading if you're inclined: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/mmaw-faapd-eng.pdfI assume you're native American (fully or partially?), well, that may be an issue for your tribe.

However, feminism really is an evil in and of itself, and actually anti-woman, because feminism teaches women that it's a bad thing to be a woman, and that women, in the name of "strength", should be like men. Apparently that's "equality".

Anyway flapperlife, I don't think you don't wanna have children right here and now, but rather, that you just haven't met the right guy yet. I mean, if you met a rich and handsome guy who liked you, you'd abandoned those indigenous pipe dreams right away and walk the really selfish route :evilgrin:

And that's another thing, now that I brought it up: it's really difficult to find a partner you click with really well. It takes lots of time, and depending on your standards, going through a hell of a lot of people before you realize, that guy is really someone whose children you'd like to have; time you probably won't have when you're close to 40.

And besides, the later in life you have children, the higher the risk for defects and other issues, not to mention that you're basically for better or worse, speeding up evolution, because the longer we live, the more genetic mutations we have, and having children late, means we pass on more mutations which could be beneficial but also detrimental.

Anyway it's your life and choice. Meanwhile, in my local town, we have a Pakistani nuclear family with 15-20 children, so no wonder India/Pakistan are overcrowded...

Janos
2015-05-19, 23:05
Anyway it's your life and choice. Meanwhile, in my local town, we have a Pakistani nuclear family with 15-20 children, so no wonder India/Pakistan are overcrowded...

Oh my Lord. That's way too many. I assume they live in a flat? Is it 7-8 people per room?

But I agree Assyrian women should start having kids in an earlier age, since Assyrians are an endangered group.

An Shigao
2015-05-19, 23:37
Why of course; that's what The Selfish Gene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene) is all about: we're basically gene machines, and our sole purpose for existence is to spread our genes, pretty much.

Well that's one way to look at it, but actually, having kids is being selfish (sort of), because when you spread your own genes, you basically copy yourself into the future gene pool, or at least a part of yourself.


We don't own our genes. Besides, genes are not the determinate factor in defining a person. Neuroplasticity is moreso. It's more rational to say we are brain machines and the "purpose of existence" either doesn't exist or is unknowable. "Purpose of existence" is a conceptual imputation originating from brain activity, most likely. The modern materialistic and reductionist worldview shows "the purpose of existence" does not exist prior to the brain that mentally represents it (called "representational theory of mind").

Also, genes exist in a biological network. They function in synergy with other parts of the body, so I don't see why they're necessarily taken as intrinsically special.

I think it's easier to argue our brains are what make us who we are, considering the fact your mental narrative exists solely as a product of brain activity. Your story of who you are most likely resides in the brain as declarative memory and a self-model, the very thing one clings to in order to give life meaning.

In that sense, there is no copy. It's an illusion produced by one's mental representations. Mankind is founded upon illusion and babbles to itself based off clinging to such fictions.

Janos
2015-05-19, 23:47
Why would "writing an article" be more important than spreading your genes?

No not at all ;)

Why of course; that's what The Selfish Gene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene) is all about: we're basically gene machines, and our sole purpose for existence is to spread our genes, pretty much.

And you're a pretty woman anyway, and pretty women should reproduce! Otherwise posterity would only consist of ugly people, if the attractive ladies would be, "I gosta focus on my career and shit", namean?

Well that's one way to look at it, but actually, having kids is being selfish (sort of), because when you spread your own genes, you basically copy yourself into the future gene pool, or at least a part of yourself.

Those are pipe dreams. And you won't make a difference anyway, unless you have the right contacts and connections. Mainstream iSheeple today don't really care about anything beside Facebook, iPhone and Obama.

"When you're ready", it'll probably be too late.

Most women don't really understand the world (and don't be offended by me saying so, because most men don't either). Career-girlism/feminism is about making women into men and men into women; you know, promoting traditionally male roles for women, such as education, job, career, making money and "earning a living" and all that other mainstream stuff. Thing is, it's fine if a guy does this stuff, because guys are supposed to hunt meat for and defend the tribe, whereas women are supposed to take care of the children. If women try to take on the hunting for meat role in an attempt to be "strong" and "independent", you're going to have women who are ready to have children first when they're 40 or so. And fertility for women at that age, is very low.

That's biological gender roles for ya.

Oh I wasn't being the slightest defensive really ;) Perhaps offensive, but I don't think I was being that either. I was just trying to explain to you that for women, there's nothing more important than having children. Women who don't want children are not valuable to men, other than sex objects (you know, "sports fucking", like Brad Pitt says in Fight Club), and while that's fun and all, such women aren't adults, because a serious part of adulthood is reproduction.

Is there really any other variety? :unsure:

I assume you're native American (fully or partially?), well, that may be an issue for your tribe.

However, feminism really is an evil in and of itself, and actually anti-woman, because feminism teaches women that it's a bad thing to be a woman, and that women, in the name of "strength", should be like men. Apparently that's "equality".

Anyway flapperlife, I don't think you don't wanna have children right here and now, but rather, that you just haven't met the right guy yet. I mean, if you met a rich and handsome guy who liked you, you'd abandoned those indigenous pipe dreams right away and walk the really selfish route :evilgrin:

And that's another thing, now that I brought it up: it's really difficult to find a partner you click with really well. It takes lots of time, and depending on your standards, going through a hell of a lot of people before you realize, that guy is really someone whose children you'd like to have; time you probably won't have when you're close to 40.

And besides, the later in life you have children, the higher the risk for defects and other issues, not to mention that you're basically for better or worse, speeding up evolution, because the longer we live, the more genetic mutations we have, and having children late, means we pass on more mutations which could be beneficial but also detrimental.

Anyway it's your life and choice. Meanwhile, in my local town, we have a Pakistani nuclear family with 15-20 children, so no wonder India/Pakistan are overcrowded...

The good thing is that those feminists who don't want children obliterate themselves. While it is the sane women who keep their bloodline alive. :D

An Shigao
2015-05-19, 23:56
While it is the sane women who keep their bloodline alive. :D

Is there a seamless, interpenetrating continuum of blood linking mothers to their daughters?

Fimbulvetr
2015-05-22, 10:02
Because some women have better shit to do than have babies. I don't understand why some people think women can't be "deep thinkers"-putting off child birth is an example of the opposite. Some women, myself included, want to finish college, want to ponder the meanings of our relation to the world, not just procreate and fill it up with more kids. I want to change the world, make a difference in someone's life, for the better.

Of course. Only white women of European descent need to have babies, and a lot of them.

BoldBedBug
2016-10-21, 02:09
Is 28.7 years a reasonable age for a woman to have her first child?

No.

Such late average age is probably related to why Europe's population is decreasing.

At around 30, a woman's fertility starts dropping quickly. That means that your average European woman can have one or sometimes two kids through natural means.

Every European woman should have at least 2 children, so the population would maintain itself.

A good age to start would be around 20-25.

If they marry men who are around 7 to 12 years older than them, these should be experienced enough in their jobs to financially sustain the family.

Perhaps they should follow the example of the ancient Romans, and marry even earlier:

"Elite young men would usually marry in their mid-twenties, after a year or more of military service and some initial experience attending cases and even pleading in the criminal or civil courts. Their brides, however, would be markedly younger women, between fifteen and twenty years of age".